Ban on puberty blockers to be made indefinite on experts’ advice

[IDareSay]

Good news, just released:

“The Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) has provided independent expert advice that there is currently an unacceptable safety risk in the continued prescription of puberty blockers to children. It recommends indefinite restrictions while work is done to ensure the safety of children and young people.”

www.gov.uk/government/news/ban-on-puberty-blockers-to-be-made-indefinite-on-experts-advice

so you are ok with 14 year old girls having their tits cut off? yes or no?

has recently been caught talking about how there is actually an increase in suicide stats and how the narrative is going to need to be carefully massaged to downplay their significance.

Evidence needed there

So much talk about so-called "trans people", but no acknowledgement that this is not a single group of people with something in common, but several groups with completely different needs.

There were concerted efforts to ban treatment for trans young people. They succeeded.

These "trans young people" are children. Children who are confused by all the gender nonsense which is being thrown at them. They don't need harmful medication.

By conflating all these so-called "trans people" under this single term, you are implying that there is no difference between a little boy who likes to play with dolls, a teenage girl who is horrified about becoming a woman and a middle-aged man who gets off on wearing his wife's knickers.

There have been concerted efforts to demonise all trans people over the age of 25 for decades, especially if they have only just begun treatment.

Is it the Malaga airport types you're referring to here? If so, I don't think it's demonising them to call out what they're doing and how harmful it is to those close to them.

The problem you have is seeing other people, particularly women, as fully human. You think that it is only you, and others who you think are like you, who matter.

Pretty offensive speculation about Professor Appleby. The escalating desperation is obvious.

With zero evidence - just the usual smear it seems.

Seems more misinformation about suicide is being spread on this thread. Hardly a good sign of an adult in a role, paid or not, which has safeguarding responsibilities.

This seems to be interesting about the development of WPATH’s SOC8. WPATH seems to be constantly being shown how very weak their development of guidance and overview is.

www.city-journal.org/article/the-deposition-of-eli-coleman#

Great article, thank you for sharing.

It really does demonstrate why following the money is important. That it's obvious that having a committee of "experts" who all have financial or intellectual (which may go on to become financial) interest in an outcome are likely to to conclude that the guidelines should support that outcome.

It also shows just how casually children came into scope from a medical perspective. That there was no rigour. Although Rachel Levine's role isn't specifically mentioned here, this sentence says a lot:

Coleman admitted in the deposition that when his committee decided to remove age minimums for political reasons, “we did not send those through another Delphi.”

This link from the article explains how a "Delphi process" should be used to manage such opinions:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8299905/

Here's an article which covers how children came into scope from a political perspective:

https://archive.ph/OEFOX

Another document recently unsealed shows that Rachel Levine, a trans woman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing wpath to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care. Dr Levine’s office has not commented. Questions remain unanswered, but none of this helps WPATH’s claim to be an organisation that bases its recommendations on science.

With zero evidence - just the usual smear it seems

I expect it goes to another school, along with the claimed "studies that keep finding evidence" that puberty blockers are safe and effective.

I've been reflecting on the various ideas about what we "know" about the likely outcome of a clinical trial on PBs.

There are a few threads on PBs/clinical trial and I think I'm putting this on the right one. Assuming I am, we've got three very different viewpoints about what we "know" about the harms/benefits. As important as fertility and bone density are, I'm going to focus on brain development.

1. We already know that the brain has development windows that are finite, and that if the expected physical and cognitive development during adolescence doesn't happen during these windows, it won't happen at all:

2. Some people who took PBs for gender dysphoria already know that they feel better about their bodies. This view is represented here on this thread but it's not clear whether the person who took PBs did so throughout the critical window of adolescent brain development. If not, it's not clear what the PBs actually achieved, because some male secondary sex characteristics would have naturally developed had the entire development window not been blocked - even if a DSD is a factor. All DSDs are sex-specific. Any DSD that resulted in no development of sex characteristics would make the use of PBs redundant, as there would be no need to block anything. The question left hanging in the air is whether the trade off between "feeling better" and stopping the brain's development (having brain damage) is an example of a benefit outweighing risk. For clarity, I am not suggesting that anyone on this thread has brain damage. I'm talking about the use of PBs at a population level.

3. the NHS used to specifically mention the risk to brain development:
   https://archive.ph/LwIm3

It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain

Now it just says very nebulously that PBs have unknown long term effects. It doesn't mention the brain any more.
Linked to the Cass Report, the government is proposing a trial to turn these unknowns into known outcomes.

I'm imagining a hypothetical situation where we "know" the outcome but don't have data to back that up. The best example I can come up with is a playground with a climbing frame that has multiple storeys. Following the logic above:

1. We know that falling from height can lead to a range of injuries, from bruises, broken bones, internal organ damage and death. We also know that no parent can be permanently vigilant with eyes on their child 100% of the time. What about that moment where a sibling has an emergency, meaning child one is temporarily not under direct close supervision?

2. We know that children feel great when they are having fun and that most young children love climbing frames. That many will climb up the outside of these structures and sit on the roof, for example i.e. that to get the feeling of happiness and adventure, they won't necessarily stay within the safety barriers. We know that there are long term benefits of exercise and having fun as a child and that an element of risk-taking is important for developing critical thinking and evaluation of risk later in life.

3. Imagine a scenario where the providers of these climbing frames say that it's unknown how high open structures should be built. The government then says that in order to establish at exactly which height climbing frames need to include metal cages or similar (so that children can't scale the outside and sit on the roof etc), we need data. To get such data, we need trials. We need to record what happens to children falling from different heights to establish the benefits (having fun, being outdoors, getting exercise) and risks (which heights led to internal organ failures more often than just broken bones? Which heights led to certain death versus a risk of death following significant injury but the majority recovered?).

Yes, that hypothetical scenario is completely ridiculous. But then so is experimenting on children's brains because there's a chance it might make them happier. Having a trial where the results are recorded and scrutinised doesn't make it any less so.

If trans people are at such risk of suicide then they need to be in an appropriate mental health facility. Plenty of people with all sorts of conditions, especially under the strained state of our NHS, have to wait years for treatment. Most of them don't kill themselves.

Trans activists have been trying for years to ban treatment for people with gender dysphoria; they term treatment as "conversion therapy". (And no treatment at all is often effective with those going through puberty, though it would be good if co-morbidities were tackled.)

https://x.com/againstgrmrs/status/1867716043306947032

I came across this video on x. WPATH admitting that when they say puberty blockers are reversible there should be an asterisk on the word reversible as they aren't really reversible in practice.

This is a great video to have found.

It's interesting how he's now concededing on one key point: they aren't reversible.

However, what on earth does two puberties mean?

There is no such thing.

So, while he's urging caution (rightly) that bodies need hormones, that being on puberty blockers indefinitely is dangerous, that sex hormones are binary (male and female).... he's throwing people with a non-binary identity under a bus to, presumably, obfuscate the obvious science here:

He gets very close to revealing it by talking about transgirls (biological male children who identify as girls) who remain on blockers never getting the secondary sex characteristics associated with being male. Their penis will remain child-sized. Also they'll never develop sperm while they are on the blockers. However, this doesn't mean that they'll go on to have "puberty 2" if they take oestrogen. They won't suddenly start ovulating and getting periods, for example. If there really were "two puberties" and only one was blocked, that's exactly what would happen.

However, still a good video to see out in the wild. It adds to the sunlight and is entirely dependent on people believing that it's possible to have the puberty of the opposite sex. We're getting closer to this myth being exposed. The days of this medical scandal are numbered and the people who have played roles in it are in damage limitation mode.

They won't suddenly start ovulating and getting periods,

Unsurprising, with them being males. How can people carry this nonsense around in their heads?

My best guess on this is that many people don't really think too hard and take it at face value that puberty = boobs for girls and deep voices + beards for boys.

Therefore if, as a result of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones, when...

a) biological males get boobs (breast tissue), but not deep voices or beards

and

b) biological females get deep voices and beards, but not boobs...

they must have been through puberty.